View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C.  20551
DIVISION OF BANKING
SUPERVISION AND
REGULATION

SR 99-8 (SUP)
March 31, 1999
TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISION
          AT EACH FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
SUBJECT:

Uniform Rating System for Information Technology

                   
On January 13, 1999, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
(FFIEC) adopted a revised Uniform Rating System for Information Technology (URSIT).1
The FFIEC published the revised rating system in the Federal Register on January 20, 1999
(64 FR 3109). The revised URSIT (Attachment 1 - 58 KB PDF) becomes effective
April 1, 1999, and is to be used in information technology examinations of all banks and data
processing service providers commencing after that date.
                   
The banking agencies originally adopted the URSIT on the recommendation of
the FFIEC in 1978. Over the years, the URSIT has proven to be an effective internal
supervisory tool for evaluating the condition of an institution's or service provider's
information technology function. Changes in information technology as well as in the banking
agencies' supervisory policies and procedures, prompted a review and revision of the 1978
rating system. In June 1998, a proposed revision to the URSIT was issued for public comment
and distributed to examiners for field-testing. The final revised URSIT incorporates the
comments received on the proposal and from the field testing. The revisions include:
Additional language to conform the URSIT to the Uniform Financial Institution
Rating System (UFIRS).2
Clarification of the component ratings and a reformat of the descriptions for the
ratings.3
Two new component categories -- "Development and Acquisition" and "Support
and Delivery" which replace "Systems and Programming" and "Operations."
An emphasis on the quality of risk management processes in each of the rating
components.
A requirement that examiners explicitly identify the risk types that are considered
in assigning component ratings.
                   
In order to facilitate implementation of the URSIT, a guide adapted from the
Information Systems Audit and Control Foundation COBIT Implementation Tool Set is
provided in Attachment 2 (37 KB PDF). The implementation guide identifies technology
concerns and their relationship to specific rating factors. This guidance provides a risk

analysis baseline for the identification of critical areas in a risk-focused examination
methodology.
                   
Should your staff have any questions, please have them contact
Michael Martinson, Deputy Associate Director, at 202/452-3640, Heidi Richards, Manager of
Specialized Activities, at 202/452-2598, or Blaine Jones, Supervisory EDP Analyst, at
202/452-3759.

William A. Ryback
Associate Director
Attachments
Supersedes:  

SR Letter 78-507

Cross-References:   SR Letters 96-38 and 96-26

Notes:
1.  
The revisions to the URSIT were developed by the staffs of the Federal Reserve, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the
Office of Thrift Supervision.  Return to text
2.   Refer to SR Letter 96-38, “Uniform Financial Institution Rating System (UFIRS)”  Return
to text
3.  
Refer to SR Letter 96-26, “Provision of Individual Components of Supervisory Rating
Systems to Management and Boards of Directors”  Return to text
SR letters | 1999
Home | Banking information and regulation
Accessibility | Contact Us
Last update: August 11, 2005

BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C.  20551
DIVISION OF BANKING
SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

SR 96-26 (SUP)
November 15, 1996
TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISION
          AT EACH FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
SUBJECT: Provision of Individual Components of Supervisory Rating Systems to
Management and Boards of Directors
                        It is a longstanding policy of the Federal Reserve to discuss fully and clearly
in examination and inspection reports, and in meetings with senior management and boards
of directors, supervisory issues, problems, or concerns relating to the institutions under the
System's supervision.  It has also generally been Federal Reserve practice for some time to
provide to senior management and directors the single word descriptions corresponding to
the numeric component ratings assigned under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating
System (CAMEL).  In an effort to further strengthen communication with supervised
institutions, beginning January 1, 1997, the Federal Reserve will provide the numeric and
alphabetic component ratings assigned under various supervisory rating systems to senior
management and directors.  Building upon existing practice, this step is intended to better
focus management attention on possible areas of weakness and the need for timely corrective
actions.  This step is also consistent with a recent recommendation from the FFIEC regarding
disclosure of the numeric component ratings assigned under CAMEL.
                        Each Reserve Bank should direct its examiners to begin disclosing component
ratings as soon as possible, but no later than January 1, 1997, in summary sections of
examination/inspection reports and directors' summaries, as necessary, and in meetings with
senior management and directors.  This directive applies to the following rating systems:
CAMEL (state member banks);
BOPEC (bank holding companies);
CAMEO (Edge and agreement corporations and overseas subsidiaries of U.S. banks);
ROCA (U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations);
the Uniform Interagency Trust Rating System; and
the Uniform Interagency Rating System for Data Processing Operations

It also applies to the alphabetic component ratings assigned to management under the
BOPEC rating system and to the alphabetic components assigned under the Transfer Agent
rating system.  General guidance on the disclosure of composite and component ratings in
examination and inspection reports is attached to this SR letter.  
                        In the context of the exit meeting, the examiner should discuss key overall
examination findings, including composite and component numeric ratings.  Consistent with
current practice, ratings are subject to a review by Reserve Bank supervisory officials, and
final ratings should be included in the examination or inspection report.  In disclosing
composite and component ratings, the examiner-in-charge should remind management that
the ratings assigned are a part of the findings of the examination or inspection and are
privileged and confidential under applicable law.  If composite and component ratings are
changed between examinations and inspections as a result of off-site analysis, management
and directors should be informed of the change.  
                        Reserve Banks should inform state banking authorities in their districts of the
decision to disclose component ratings and should explain the reasons for this change in
Federal Reserve procedures prior to beginning disclosure of component ratings. Component
ratings assigned under AEP arrangements by state agencies should be treated by the Reserve
Banks in a manner that is consistent with the state's policy regarding disclosure.
                        The guidance included in this SR letter is to be applied going forward,
consistent with the approach taken by the other banking agencies.  In general, component
ratings assigned in the past should be treated in accordance with the policy prevailing at the
time.
                        A copy of this letter should be provided to each institution supervised by the
Federal Reserve.  If there are any questions relating to the disclosure of component ratings,
please contact Connie Powell, Supervisory Financial Analyst, at (202-452-3506), or Kevin
Bertsch, Supervisory Financial Analyst, at (202-452-5265).  
Richard Spillenkothen
Director
ATTACHMENT TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY BELOW
Cross
SR 88-37, "Disclosure of Numeric Composite Examination and Inspection
references: Ratings to Examined/Inspected Institutions"
SR 90-21, "Rating System for International Exams"
SR 91-21, "EDP Interagency Examination, Scheduling and Distribution Policy"
SR 95-22, "Enhanced Framework for Supervising the U.S. Operations of
Foreign Banking Organizations"
SR 95-51, "Rating the Adequacy of Risk Management Processes and Internal
Controls at State Member Banks and Bank Holding Companies"
SR 96-10, "Risk-focused Fiduciary Examinations"

Guidance on Disclosure of Composite and Component Ratings
in Examination and Inspection Reports
        Page one of the report should list the composite rating for the current examination or
inspection and for the two previous examinations or inspections at the top of the page as
outlined below for bank examinations.
Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System
Current Exam Prior Exam Prior Exam
Exam Date:
09-03-9X
10-19-9Y 10-22-9Z
Composite Rating:
2
2
2
Component Ratings:
      Capital
2
n/a
n/a
      Asset Quality
2
n/a
n/a
      Management
2
n/a
n/a
      Earnings
2
n/a
n/a
      Liquidity
2
n/a
n/a
                        This listing should be followed by the uniform definition of the assigned
composite rating.  The uniform definitions of the component ratings assigned need not be
included in reports; however, they should be made available to management and directors
upon request.  
                        When combined examination/inspection report formats are used, similar
matrices for each composite and component rating assigned should be included in the
report.  
                        Numeric and alphabetic component ratings should also be included on the
pages of reports that discuss findings related to the components.  For example, for bank
examination reports, the numeric component rating assigned to capital should appear on the
capital page of the report.  
                        In the case of examinations of independent data processing servicers and
financial institutions that provide servicing to other insured financial institutions,
examination reports are sometimes provided not only to the examined data processing
servicers but also to the institutions that receive servicing from these servicers. Accordingly,
in these cases, the composite and component ratings assigned under the Uniform Interagency
Rating System for Data Processing Operations should be provided to senior management and
directors in the transmittal letter accompanying the examination report rather than in the open
section of the examination report.1
Footnotes
1.  Additional guidance on the disclosure of composite and component ratings for
examinations of information systems will be issued by the FFIEC in the near future.  Return
to text
SR letters | 1996

Home | Banking information and regulation
Accessibility | Contact Us
Last update: March 29, 2005